[font color=\'#000000\']
Getting back to the question of 1Ds vs 1D Mk II, I would like to propose the question, " Is there anyone out there who has used a 1D Mk II to take a landscape who afterwards cursed his luck that he didn't have a 1Ds in his backpack?"
They are close in raw imaging capability, but the 1Ds reigns supreme, especially in capturing fine detail. However it is difficult to quantify the difference.
If you never compared the same shot from a 1Ds directly to a MKII, then you'd likely be more than satisfied with what the MKII delivered. However if you make that comparison, you can see the extra detail in the 1Ds image.
If you know you will only settle for the best image detail, the 1Ds is the camera to choose. If you are satisfied with excellent image quality, don't need full-frame (for ultra-wideangle) and shoot a significant amount of fast action, then the MKII is the better choice -- just know you are going to be giving up a bit of raw imaging capability to the 1Ds.
So for those of us that owned the 1Ds first and decided to "try out" a MKII, we ended up cursed; most of us currently have both as it is tough to go backwards in imaging quality, even if it is only a mini-step
Jack[/font]